About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 6
CNNW 4
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
to disrupt, degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat those who attacked america on 9/11. al qaeda. since september 11, 2001, our country has worked relentlessly to bring those responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in our history to justice. we have made very clear that we are at war with al qaeda. we've also made clear in going after osama bin laden and dozens of others that nobody attacks the united states and gets away with it. and we have made clear that we will do everything possible to ensure that such an attack never , never happens again. that means counterterrorism will continue as a key mission to our military and intelligence professionals. as long as violent extremists pose a direct threat to the united states, our allies and global interests, we have a responsibility to counter that threet. during my tenure as director of the c.i.a. and secretary of defense, i have truly been privileged to meet and work with thousands of professionals who have made this fight their fight, who have put their lives on the line for their country and who have built the most effective global
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
al qaeda and the impact of sequestration, and another chance to see q&a." tomorrow on "washington journal," matt lewis looks up the future of the republican party. congress debates the so-called fiscal cliff, and the wall street journal correspondent discusses the options concerning a shortfall in the administration budget. british prime minister david cameron and ed miliband who agreed international pressure must be put on israel and hamas to end the violence in the region and work to a two-state solution. the remark came during a session of the house of commons. also discussion of recent elections for local police commissioners. this constituency and elsewhere. >> questions for the prime minister first from hunt. >> thank you, mr. speaker. before listing my engagements the house will wish to join me in sending our sympathies and condolences to the family of captain walter berry of first battalion at the royal richmond of scotland. he was described as a fantastic, engaging and professional soldier. he will be truly missed byll who knew him. our nation must never forget his servic
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
one man. >> the other factor here is that if this is a big tool for recruiting al-qaeda and the numbers are growing larger because of these things, these drones, that's something to look into. another thing worth looking into is kaleidoscope. it is like being on acid minus coming down. >> they said there was going to be a blow back from this. there was going to be a back -- a backlash. no one ever liked the drones overseas. >> it shot them. >> will the tracking chip be more than a blip? a san antonio school district tested a policy requiring the kids to carry microchipped id cards that monitored their movement on campus. it has been the opposite of mott controversial. not controversial. one pupil hacked the school's website because he wrote "the district is striping away the privacy of students." wow that's eloquent. officials say they are trying it to track attendance to draw in more state funding. we asked one of the students at school to comment and here is what he said. >> i think he was a matriculated student. >> he does not use conditioner. >> i think that was gary
, common interests, that the talibans, al qaeda will take over that country. and i think there is very, very important possibility. iraq, same thing. where is iraq going? i think it is high time that u.s. and iran start dialogue on these two strategically important issues. totally neglected and i'm a little upset about that. because what u.s. must swallow is it has to eliminate all talking about regime change in iran. it is up to the iranian people, reform is, the people who like to change the society. it's not united states which should make a regime change. and, of course, therefore, i think establish thematic relations. [inaudible] with switzerland or, wonderful diplomatic, wonderful people, but still, you have to have, take a have the courage to talk to the other guy and try to establish relations. and not send information through newspapers or brussels or other places. it is the u.s. should establish its own direct dialogue. so that's one thing. and the other, the inspections, and i think there is almost too simple to be true. i mean, one should recognize iran's right to enrich, e
speaking out. james clapper saying he is the one who took out al qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we all believe here? joining us now is former cia covert operations officer mike baker live in boise idaho at 3:15 a.m. good to see you, mike. >> thank you. good to see you and thank you for the opportunity. >> what do we make of all of this after what susan rice has come out and said? she clearly relayed the intel given to her. should we expect a diplomat to do more than that. to go beyond and ask questions before relay ago story to the media. >> well, right. not just a diplomat but the person that president obama claims would be a perfect secretary of state to replace secretary clinton. ambassador rice is stying five days after the attack. now it's three mons on from the attack and we are still kind of around with the potential investigation. getting people in to testify. but ambassador rice is saying five days after the attack all she did, at the behest of the white house was go on the sunday morning talk show circuit and rely entirel
the latest campaign approach against the widening al qaeda geographic threat. and the increased use of special operations forces to combat the threat. [video clip] >> this campaign against al- qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones using a small footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign, special forces operations and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own. wherever possible, we will work through and with local partners supporting them with the intelligence and resources they need in order to deter these common threats. for example, in mali, we are working with our partners in western africa who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability posed by aqap. fourth, in support of these kind of efforts, we have to invest in the future. in new military and intelligence capabilities and security partnerships. our new defense strategy makes clear that the military must retain and even build new counter-terrorism capabilities for the futur
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
to. it wasn't only collecting intelligence against al qaeda and the enemy, but other allies and mapping human terrain. along that path, there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came out. tell us a little bit about that and why you and your team push for that. >> it was really a product of great frustration because we have these human sources -- sure enough, driven by her human sources on the ground, we have found a modern. a very clear video, we knew exactly where he was near kandahar. we reported the intelligence and the response was that the missiles will take several hours and where will he be several hours from now? at that point, we said that we would have to do it ourselves. can we attach these missiles to a drone and that is what compelled the cia to put this program together. when 9/11 transpired, that is why the cia had drones as well. >> as you look back at on it now, drone worker has increased probably well beyond what you saw at that time. on balance, was the right thing? a questionable thing? heavyweight at? is any tool and weapo
this growing asymmetry of power and not just al qaeda, hezbollah was the cyberspace, but it can be very positive, too. the next is bill gates a nonstate, look what he's done and how he's contributed. zucker berquist is to develop a society of a billion people network. there's been a positive examples if you look at the asymmetry of power. i won't nonstate at yours and increasingly this complex, global, integrated that oldfield or marketplace. such is the nature of war and risk we have to understand better. secondly, cyberspace. my good friend, general mike hayden has talked about the coming pearl harbor in cyberspace and i agree with him. it's going to happen and we are willfully bug prepared. the third area i was stressed is the growing demographic shift worldwide. for the first time as of last year more people live in cities and that trend is accelerating. if you like in societies like africa, what does that mean in terms of demographics or resources? these changes will accelerate and we need to be better prepared for the across-the-board. those are three large general chunks we shoul
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
. there is no question. >> there is a question. >> how the al qaeda references were eliminated. was it james clapper? was it the justice department? was it somebody else. that we don't know the answer to and maybe the confirmation hearings for susan rice will reveal that. however, i think what's striking about this "washington post" piece, and again, it is online by stephanie mccrummon anybody can read it, how obvious it is they are setting her to run for president in 2016. as soon as she leaves the state dipt which will be probably next, a little while, articles like this will be seen, part of a fund-raising pitch. hillary is your obvious choice, democrats to run for president. look at all the puffy praise. every bad thing that happened in the obama administration foreign policy not saying all bad but this article now wipes all those away. she is beloved. everybody loves her. she spent 30 years in public service which i don't quite understand how they got the math on that. nonetheless they're saying it that way. and i think it's reminder what we have to look forward to in the next four years. >> th
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
that seemed to play down the role of al qaeda terrorists on the attack in benghazi, libya. that attack killed four americans, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. rice maintains that she made it very clear, the intelligence information she had at the time was preliminary. senators are threatening to block her nomination if president obama chooses her to be his next secretary of state. >>> president obama and vice president joe biden will meet with mexico's president-elect today. pena kneeate toe has a new message. in an editorial in "the washington post" he said the u.s./mexico relations need to go beyond drugs and security concerns. topping his list, deepening economic ties with the united states. >>> the remains of former palestinian leader yasser arafat were exhumed this morning from a mausoleum in the west bank. many palestinians believe that arafat was poisoned by israel when he died in 2004. now, an international team of scientists will analyze tissue samples to see if they contain any traces of a radioactive substance. the actual cause of arafat's death was never determined. >>> th
to combat the threat i want to play that for you and get your response. >> the's campaign against al qaeda, largely takes place outside declared combat zones, using a small footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign special forces operations and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective combating terrorism on their own. wherever possible, we will work through and with local partners, supporting them with the intelligence and resources they need in order to deter these common threats. for example in mali we are working with our partners, western africa, who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability imposed by aqim. fourth, in support of these kinds of efforts, we have to invest in the future. in the military and intelligence capabilities and security partnerships. our new defense strategy makes clear, the military must retain and even build new counterterrorism capabilities for the future. as we reduce the size of the military, we are going to continue to ramp up special operations forces, whic
that they knew that those with ties to al qaeda work involved in the attacks in the embassy, and clearly the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that information was wrong, and they knew by the 22nd that it was wrong. they have not clear that up with the american people, and coming forward in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states also talking about the fact that it was a reaction to the video. what troubles me also is that obviously the changes made, the unclassified talking points were misleading, but just to be clear, when you have a position where your and ambassador to the united nations, you go well beyond classified talking points in your daily responsibilities, and that is troubling to me as well, i am a person that got -- does not know anything about this and i am going on every single show. is part of our responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to review much more than that. >> before anybody could make an intelligent d
in afghanistan, and we have a continuing effort against all kinda -- al qaeda, and as we achieve some of those important goals, the united states is moving towards the end of the longest sustained armed conflict in the nation's history, and i would also like to take a moment to express my pride in the men and women in uniform who have fought throughout that period, putting their lives on line to protect this country. were it not for their sacrifices, were in not for their willingness to do that, we would not be able to accomplish what we have. thank god they are there. [applause] one thing i found out when i came from the cia to the defense department, i have a lot of great joy is. i have got great weapons, a great ships, great plains, great technologies, but none of that would be worth anything without the good men and women in uniform that serve this country and did it take their lives to protecting this country. that is the real strength of the united states of america. as we transition into this new era, we will have to look at important priorities that will take on a greater urgency, part
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)